Caller Verification Prompt
I recommended that the FCC, By law, require all companies that provide Phone and Cell phone services be made to provide an optional "Call confirm" feature at no charge or at least or a fair minimal one time charge to cover the expenses to create this feature. If a call is made to a number with this active, the caller has to confirm the call before it will ring the dialed number. Just like a "Captcha" does for a website. Details are included in the attached Word file "Caller Verification Prompting"
Make them provide options so a customer can modify the pass code so that they cannot predict the action needed to pass the call confirmation prompt. That way the robocaller users cannot modify the software to defeat it.
Since voice recognition software could understand the prompts, make it require a response to simple questions and have multiple options for the consumer to select. The attached Word document offers examples.
Have enough options that the robot dialer cannot afford to re-write and predict a way to trick all of the confirm codes. As are modified, they will lose buyers for the dialing servers outside the USA.
Political, Charities and Emergency services Bypass codes are address and how to manage them.
7 comments
scott taggart • over 13 years ago
Interesting ideas but very tough sell to roll this out to all the telcos... It requires a ton of new SW on a ton of different platforms. The submission requirements say that the ideal solution can be deployed easily and cheaply, if possible...
Jeff Free • over 13 years ago
It was not hard,or take them long at all to come up with products to block a certain number of offending callers for a fee they could repeatedly bill.
It would be all about motivation. If they want to stay in business, they have to obey the law. Sound simple enough?
They had a chance to prevent this mess but chose to make a profit off the problem. They should have control over their products and considering all the new phones sold and numbers issued, a minimal fee could pay a entire department of programers.
All industries experience expenses when laws change, they should be no different. They had a problem and chose poorly as to how to respond to it, so they should absorb the cost when their customers are abused and a law is needed to protect them.
We don't need to worry about the feelings of the Telecos, They didn't care about the customers.
Jeff Free • over 13 years ago
BTW, I just pulled up my list of frequent offending phone numbers and called a few of them. Amazing they give the option to speak to a agent but it does not connect now. Thank you FTC!!!! Bless you all !!
Jeff Free • over 13 years ago
As described in my follow up document, Simple elementary level questions would be asked that would require logic to correctly answer, false answers would be logged and or forwarded to a FTC agent. Offer the customer multiple options that can be updated as needed to foil the robo dialer. Questions could be as simple as "See spot ____?" and they enter in the numbers to spell run. Any valid users of auto dialers such as emergency services would have to register them with the FTC and have a issued registry code that would be an algorithm and a expiration date. Government services no fees, Charities that are registered and have confirmed the majority of the donations are for charity, And do not have a business license to resell donations for profits to that business.
A simple one would be: the julian date multiplied by the registered caller ID divided by the registration number. Politicians or legit Businesses would have to re apply every 30 days and pay for the registration. All after a review of complaints.
Since I have so many fake charities calling me, they would have to register and prove to not be a business reselling donations. Still registered and true donations reported quarterly. Georgia is full of charities selling donations but only using a very small percentage of the donations for a true charity. They pick the best things to sell at their retail stores in the same business for private profit. They enjoy the "non profit" benefits and have a "for profit" in the same business.
Jeff Free • over 13 years ago
As far as the telcos, Every business has to operate within the law. Make this a law and they keep their license. They had the opportunity to do the right thing and they chose poorly. My carrier decided they could profit off this illegal activity by selling a monthly blocking package that could only block 10 numbers knowing the telemarketers could spoof caller ID's as often as they want.
In my plan, ANYONE using a robo Dialer has to register it. IF I opened up any business, I would have to obey the law.
Points:
Government services, no charge.
Registered charities have to show the percentage of donations and a threshold established, then no charge if most donations actually are charitable. (No businesses taking clothes and cars to resell for profit)
No more fake " You've won a vacation package" calls were you have to pay to get your "prize" from Timeshare companies,
Or "Free Home Alarms" once you pay all the installation fees to claim your prize.
Politicians and businesses, 30 days and charged and a compliance / complaint review that includes the compliance with Do not call laws, What ever laws are in place at the time for the registration. Including reviewing complaints received with the registrant required to respond to 100% of the complaints to the FTC. Not the FTC managing the complaints. They get a complaint it is forwarded to the registrant and have one week to respond or the registration is forfeited.
Again, all of this is for those that activate Call Verification / confirmation. The Communication companies will have to comply and have a set one time maximum fee they are allowed to charge to cover development cost/ maintenance. They will make money off this with all the new phone numbers they are generating. Even at a one dollar fee they will make enough to pay an entire business unit!
If it interferes with a consumer, they turn it off. All of this will cost the illegal users of robo calls too much money to stay in their shady businesses.
Jeff Free • over 13 years ago
Your wrong Jeff F.
Do you work for a telephone service provider? I have 2 spinal fusions and I'm looking for work, I also have a hobby business I use to try to make some living, So, yes it is hard to get up and down constantly with calls for renting a time shares or somebody trying to steal my CC numbers with a false promise of lowering interest rates. Answering about 10 spam calls a day is a physical pain for me and interrupt my job searching efforts.
I do get calls from strangers wanting to buy things I'm having to sell to get by, And from job applications I've made. I can't afford to miss those calls.
How could this be easier for consumers? If a computer calling device cannot respond to a simple question that requires a human to answer, it is not allowed to place the call to the consumer that has this service activated, so there would be no effort needed.
I don't think you understand my proposal, or you work for a service provider that doesn't want to take the responsibility for protecting consumers. If the latter, My proposal must be one you can't beat?
Jeff Free • over 13 years ago
Your wrong Jeff F.
Do you work for a telephone service provider? I have 2 spinal fusions and I'm looking for work, I also have a hobby business I use to try to make some living, So, yes it is hard to get up and down constantly with calls for renting a time shares or somebody trying to steal my CC numbers with a false promise of lowering interest rates. Answering about 10 spam calls a day is a physical pain for me and interrupt my job searching efforts.
I do get calls from strangers wanting to buy things I'm having to sell to get by, And from job applications I've made. I can't afford to miss those calls.
How could this be easier for consumers? If a computer calling device cannot respond to a simple question that requires a human to answer, it is not allowed to place the call to the consumer that has this service activated, so there would be no effort needed.
I don't think you understand my proposal, or you work for a service provider that doesn't want to take the responsibility for protecting consumers. If the latter, My proposal must be one you can't beat?
This is how the web has blocked spamming post, they use a Kaptcha, but that won't work with a phone call, so the equivalent would be to require the CALLING party to answer a simple question or the call would not be made or it could be rerouted to a recording and at that time the callers data could be logged to catch the people using unregistered robot Dialing machines to harass consumers.